Texas Business Incentives Highest in Nation: A story of corporate welfare and low paying jobs

The Preston Hollow neighborhood has been home to many of Texas’ rich and powerful — George and Laura Bush, Mark Cuban, T. Boone Pickens, Ross Perot. So it is hardly surprising that a recent political fund-raiser was held there on the back terrace of a 20,000-square-foot home overlooking lush gardens with life-size bronze statues of the host’s daughters.

The guest of honor was Gov. Rick Perry, but the man behind the event was not one of the enclave’s boldface names. He was a tax consultant named G. Brint Ryan.

Mr. Ryan’s specialty is helping clients like ExxonMobil and Neiman Marcus secure state and local tax breaks and other business incentives. It is a good line of work in Texas.

ASK A QUESTION

On Monday, Louise Story will be responding to your questions about business incentives. Ask your question in the comments section below.

Under Mr. Perry, Texas gives out more of the incentives than any other state, around $19 billion a year, an examination by The New York Times has found. Texas justifies its largess by pointing out that it is home to half of all the private sector jobs created over the last decade nationwide. As the invitation to the fund-raiser boasted: “Texas leads the nation in job creation.”

Yet the raw numbers mask a more complicated reality behind the flood of incentives, the examination shows, and raise questions about who benefits more, the businesses or the people of Texas.

Along with the huge job growth, the state has the third-highest proportion of hourly jobs paying at or below minimum wage. And despite its low level of unemployment, Texas has the 11th-highest poverty rate among states.

The whole idea of federalism is that the states get to experiment, and that instead of having a theoretical discussion of what logically stands to work best, we can just try everything and then see what works.

The whole idea of federalism is that the states get to experiment, and that instead of having a theoretical discussion of what logically stands to work best, we can just try everything and then see what works.

The whole idea of federalism is that the states get to experiment, and that instead of having a theoretical discussion of what logically stands to work best, we can just try everything and then see what works.

As the article points out, Texas unemployment is low. At the same time Texas is near the top for poverty numbers.

The phrase to know is "working poor." If 40 hours per week means you are still eligible for assistance while your company is making record profits, we all have a problem.

It is a valid point that statistics require context, and that a lower unemployment rate does not settle the argument. But let us look deeper. If the choice is low or high wages, high is better. Looking at say Michigan suggests that it can happen that the choice is between insisting on high wages and getting high unemployment, or going for less unemployment but with lower wages. It should be kept in mind that TX receives, and assimilates, a large immigrant flow. Most without English mastery or advanced education. What hope is there of having a low poverty rate? We do have lower cost of living. The same income goes further. And we, unlike much of the country, treat our high school graduates to in state tuition. Even if they are undocumented. It is a step toward a better future for the next generation and for our economy.

People are voting with their feet, and voting to live in TX. Yes we have problems. So does blue state territory.

It is a valid point that statistics require context, and that a lower unemployment rate does not settle the argument. But let us look deeper. If the choice is low or high wages, high is better. Looking at say Michigan suggests that it can happen that the choice is between insisting on high wages and getting high unemployment, or going for less unemployment but with lower wages. It should be kept in mind that TX receives, and assimilates, a large immigrant flow. Most without English mastery or advanced education. What hope is there of having a low poverty rate? We do have lower cost of living. The same income goes further. And we, unlike much of the country, treat our high school graduates to in state tuition. Even if they are undocumented. It is a step toward a better future for the next generation and for our economy.

People are voting with their feet, and voting to live in TX. Yes we have problems. So does blue state territory.

Hey guess what! There are jobs in Michigan! So you can take your "All the part time minimum wage jobs for all the hours you can stay awake!" and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

I know. But it will remain a right to work state, with lower than average taxes and lower than average unemployment. Its schools, as per naep test results, will remain better than CA. They will likely improve. And it will continue to attract internal migration.